On Thu, 17 Sep 2009, Øistein E. Andersen wrote:
>
> Printable Unicode characters are referred to in at least five different ways:
> U+003D EQUALS SIGN (=)
> U+003D EQUALS SIGN ("=")
> U+003D EQUALS SIGN character (=)
> U+002D HYPHEN-MINUS ("-")
> U+003D EQUALS SIGN
>
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009, Sebastian Markb�ge wrote:
>
> No browser has implemented the copy/paste part of the spec.
Few parts of the spec are perfectly implemented anywhere today, indeed.
That's what it'll take years to get to -- that's where the "2022" estimate
comes from, in fact -- I doubt we'll
On Mon, 7 Sep 2009, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Geoffrey Sneddon
> wrote:
> > Apparently Hixie had previously said he didn't want to change this as it
> > will become a non-issue over time. I think it does matter due to the
> > security issues it presents in existing UAs.
On 04/10/2009 18:11, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Dean Edwards wrote:
On 04/10/2009 15:51, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
only requires extra hacks in two browsers that are on the way
out. Given a little bit more time they'll be gone completely, and we
can stop worrying
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Dean Edwards wrote:
> On 04/10/2009 15:51, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>
>> only requires extra hacks in two browsers that are on the way
>> out. Given a little bit more time they'll be gone completely, and we
>> can stop worrying about this.
>>
>
> I'm sorry but you
On 04/10/2009 15:51, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
only requires extra hacks in two browsers that are on the way
out. Given a little bit more time they'll be gone completely, and we
can stop worrying about this.
I'm sorry but you are really understating the problem here.
-dean
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 4:13 AM, Keryx Web wrote:
> I am arguing in favor of introducing a new element, which would be the zero
> cost solution, since is new anyway.
It's not a zero-cost solution, though. It introduces *another* nearly
identical heading-type element to the language, joining the
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009, Wellington Fernando de Macedo wrote:
>
> Ian, do you intend to add any other features to the first version of
> WebSocket? If yes, which ones?
I was thinking of adding multiplexing, but after discussing this with a
variety of people, I'm leaning towards leaving the protocol a
On Wed, 2 Sep 2009, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> >
> > Neither nor were added because they are expected to
> > be used in great numbers. Both were added to prevent another element
> > from being _mis_used. (Specifically, takes away from the risk
> > of people marking up dialogs as association lists
2009-10-03 21:47, Tab Atkins Jr. skrev:
Well, no amount of proof would do so; only a convincing enough
argument. I, personally, do not feel that's semantics change
between and. Nor do I feel they have different syntax
at all - and do have slightly different syntaxes, but
it's very minor and
10 matches
Mail list logo
